Beyond minimal coupling for charged scalars? Modified electrodynamics and London-penetration tests

Abstract

While standard minimal coupling works well for Dirac fermions, its application to scalar fields features a known ``peculiarity'': the term linear in Aμ does not coincide with the conserved Noether current of the interacting theory. We recently proposed choosing a different principle for electromagnetic interactions, namely a linear coupling AμJμ with Jμ a (globally) conserved current, accepting the consequence that one must abandon full local gauge invariance in the electromagnetic sector and adopt an extended electrodynamics (of Aharonov--Bohm type) that can couple consistently to non-locally-conserved currents. We present the physical motivations offered for proposing the modified coupling and discuss general consequences of reducing gauge invariance. We then focus on the central condensed-matter claim: for bosonic charged condensates, the modified framework predicts a rescaled magnetic penetration depth λ λ/2, while leaving other key qualitative features of superconducting electrodynamics and the type-I/type-II distinction unchanged (up to an equivalent rescaling of the GL parameter). Finally, we analyze experimental data for a London-length consistency check based on independent measurements of the ratio ns/m between carrier density and effective mass. We compare for five materials an ``optical'' penetration depth λopt inferred from IR/THz superfluid spectral weight with a ``magnetic'' depth λmag obtained independently (LE-μSR, TF-μSR, microwave methods, etc.). Data for Nb, YBCO and Ba(Fe,Co)2As2 confirm the hypothesis λopt>λmag, with a ratio not far from 1.4; data for Pb are inconclusive while data for MgB2 indicate λoptλmag as predicted by the standard theory.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…